nah, you can put me under the Tiger was the best player and played even better, relative to the field, on more difficult steups tab though. You can also include me in the "Tiger's nerves or mental state under pressure do not negatively affect his game on the whole" camp.

So you do think he's better under pressure than others.

As for tougher setups, he still had to have experienced super positive variance. I mean we can't have it both ways...he has run bad especially in 2013 when he was frequently in major contention on the weekends, but he didn't at all run good winning 7/11 majors or whatever.

What do you think Tiger's mental toughness rating 1-10 was in 2008? 2010? 2018? Why?

Let's try to come up with some testable hypothesis too rather than drawing narratives after the fact, like looking at a 1 shot loss that ended Birdie-Par on 17 and 18, and claim #18 was all pressure and 17 didn't count.

Clark with his amazing "pressure exists, therefore I can conclude whatever I want" herp derpness

Thayer, you didn’t answer my question. Did Tiger have great Mental toughness/ability to deal with pressure/clutchness or no.

Note, variance obviously exists regardless of one’s opinion.

sure, but I also think he is still better under pressure than others and there is no material evidence to the contrary as his performance under pressure hasn't been worse than expectations had the same round been played without pressure.

I don't remember every shot of these tournies so I will have to take a pass on which ones he ran good and bad in. However, I will note that it is entirely possible that he ran bad in majors even in his prime if he was simply that much better than everyone else.

He ran pretty decent. During most of his career Tiger was 3+ shots better than the field. On average it takes ~15 SG on the field to win an event.

If we assume from when he turned pro through 2008 he was on average 3.25 strokes better than the field. Then in the 48 Majors he played here are his expected number of wins on a percent basis.

12 - 8%
13 - 9%
14 - 11%
15 - 13%
16- 11%
17- 10%
18 - 8%

Peak Tiger was in the high 3's better than the field per round. Let's say 3.75sg/rd. How often should that Tiger win 7 of 11 majors? Here's odds he win X out of 11

5- 17%
6- 28%
7- 22%
8- 9%


Since 2010, if you give him essentially 12 "healthy" major starts where he's the best in the world (~2.25sg/rd better than the field is typically best in the world nowadays) then here's his expectation.

0 - 29%
1 - 41%
2 - 20%
3 - 9%
4 - 1%

Clark, you didn't answer my question while beating a ridiculously dumb strawman

2010 and 2011, Tiger was not 2 strokes better than the field. 2010, he entered 12 tourneys and was in the top 10 twice and was 43rd in the FedEx Cup. 2011, he entered 9 tourneys and had 2 top 10s and was 132nd in the FedEx Cup.

He wasn't the best in the world then or in 2012 (Rory was better than him).

He's clearly not the best in the world now. He's still probably a long shot to even get to 83 lifetime PGA victories. And 19 majors isn't even on the radar.

So massively increase his 0 majors won % and then laugh harder at people concluding he is mentally lost despite winning the most likely amount of majors over a time period given his skill level.

nxt, those numbers assume he was no better than the field at specific courses or under specific conditions (US Open or British Open conditions), right? Its conceivably possible that the difficult conditions favored him more than a normal course did and thus he was 4+ strokes better than the field in those events.

Oh boy thayer and cdl on the same side and have at least 8 more straight hours in them a piece

put on your hazmat suits

Grunching

Tiger won’t win so long as PGA continues to test for PEDs. He’s a cheater and a loser, through and through.

I’ll take the field at whatever the vegas odds are if anyone wants to bet him

Some dude has the round of the tournament and shoots a 65 on Sunday to beat Tiger by 1 stroke and you guys are using his 2nd place and Birdie Par finish as proof that Tiger doesn't have it anymore and can't win. You guys are just wanting really badly and not willing to actually make testable hypotheses of his performance under pressure

I know it’s hard for you to understand Thayer but pressure is person and situation dependent. It doesn’t lend itself to brute analytics. Simple example: some dude who suddenly gets the yips. Suddenly a whole new definition of pressure needs to happen for that one individual to measure how you’d like to. Human emotions simply don’t lend themselves to a analysis way you’d like.

Yeah, we seem to be pretty big aspy logictards, clearly inferior to the analysis of the Clark Woody CVig triumvirate

Lol at citing birdie par finish when dude blew it long before.

I know it's hard for you to understand Clark but you're just babbling away justifications for your feelings

When did he blow it?

Here is his Round 4 scorecard in his 1 stroke loss to a tourney best 65 for reference:

See that 15-hole +1 stretch on Sunday on a course that wasn’t playing that hard?

And I don’t particularly care about any of these tourneys to be honest. The reality is he is freaking rusty and figuring it out still. I’m referring to his major performance after he was in game shape and had multiple chances.

The round played overpar, he had 1 bogey and most of the leaderboard failed to do better. Dude blew it. Had nothing to do with someone shooting a 65 or him being "freaking rusty", it's all in his head mannnn. Yawn

It had everything to do with what Rory did. And yet the headlines are all about Tiger. Thats my issue. Not that I think Tiger sucks.